Employers Should Beware of "Ban the Box" Legislation

In April 2011, the City of Philadelphia enacted a new ordinance entitled the “Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards.” Referred to as the “ban the box” legislation because of its stated intent to ban the criminal history “box” on employment applications, the ordinance restricts employer inquiries regarding, and use of, criminal record information. Specifically, employers (defined as employing 10 or more persons) may not make an inquiry regarding or take adverse action based upon non-conviction information (arrests), and may not make any inquiry regarding criminal conviction information during the application process, before the first interview or during the first interview.
 
However, the ordinance does permit employers to process criminal background checks after the first interview has occurred. In addition, employers who are required to conduct background checks due to industry regulations or the nature of their business will be exempt from this new law.
 
Employers found in violation are subject to a fine, which is currently $2,000 for each violation. The Ordinance becomes effective July 13, 2011.
 
A number of cities, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have recently enacted similar legislation. Although the Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards applies only to applicants who are applying for jobs in the City of Philadelphia, based on recent trends, employers throughout Pennsylvania should be prepared for potentially similar ordinances to be proposed in other localities throughout the Commonwealth in the future.
 
As it stands now, employers in the City of Philadelphia will need to remove questions regarding criminal convictions from their employment applications, and train those who interview applicants to refrain from inquiring as to criminal convictions during an applicant’s initial interview.

The USPTO "Three-Track" Initiative

The week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the first step in implementation of a new patent examination initiative, which they claim will provide applicants greater control over the speed with which their applications are examined.   Pendency has been a major concern with the USPTO, considering that some applications are not being assigned for examination up to five years after filing. The “Three-Track” initiative is intended to promote greater efficiency in patent prosecution, by reducing pendency of some application. 

Under Track I, prioritized examination, announced by the USPTO this week and will provide a first Office action on the merits within four months and a final disposition within twelve months of the grant of a Track I request. 

Starting May 4, 2011, an applicant may request prioritized examination with payment of a $4,000 request fee and other filing fees. see 76 Fed. Reg. 18399. Prioritization is available only for an original and complete utility or plant non-provisional application that contains or is amended to contain no more than four independent claims, no more than 30 total claims, and no multiple dependent claims. If the prioritization is granted, the application receives special status and placed on the examiner's special docket throughout prosecution until a final disposition is reached in the application. As a result, the applicant may receive final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status being granted, which may include: (1) mailing of a notice of allowance, (2) mailing of a final Office action, (3) filing of a notice of appeal, (4) declaration of an interference by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), (5) filing of a request for continued examination, or (6) abandonment of the application.

A continuation application that claims priority to a pending application may be filed along with a Request for Prioritized Examination, however, a Request for Prioritized Examination will not be granted when filed with a new PCT national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371. 

At first, the USPTO will limit the number of applications filed with a Request for Prioritized Examination to 10,000 applications for the 2011 fiscal year, and then revaluate any future limitations on requests. 

In the near future, an applicant will have three options as part of the “Three-Track” initiative, including arequest a traditional examination under the current procedures (Track II), or for non-continuing applications first filed in the USPTO, a request for an applicant-controlled delay for up to 30 months prior to docketing for examination (Track III), which is expected to be implemented in the Fall of 2011.

Property Owners Not Liable for Construction-Related Personal Injury Accidents

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled recently that property owners that retain contractors are no longer liable for construction-related personal injury accidents on their property. The ruling benefits property owners while increasing the risk allocation and risk exposure for construction managers, general contractors and other non-employee involved subcontractors.

 
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. clarified that owners are not liable for injuries to employees of independent contractors or subcontractors absent control over the “means and methods” of the work being performed, such as directing the subsequently-injured plaintiff how to actually do the work in question. 
 
For more information on this decision and its implications to owners, contractors, construction managers and subcontractors, please contact Ron Pollock (717-399-1539 or rpollock@barley.com) or any member of Barley Snyder’s Construction Law Group.

Employers vs. Independent Contractors: Know the New Law

On October 13, Governor Rendell signed into law the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act which makes it both a civil and a criminal offense for a contractor to knowingly misclassify an employee as an independent contractor. Pennsylvania joins several states that have taken similar measures to penalize employers that improperly classify workers as independent contractors to avoid paying certain taxes and other employee benefits.

 
The Act establishes criteria particular to the construction industry under which employees can be classified as independent contractors, including a requirement that the independent contractor maintain liability insurance. The Act also imposes both civil and criminal penalties for misclassification of workers, and requires employers to post notices in the workplace.

 
Which Employers Are Covered Under the Act?

Employers in the construction industry that are already subject to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Act are covered by this new Act. The Act also extends liability to individual officers or agents of the employer. Construction is defined broadly as the “erection, reconstruction demolition, alteration, modification, custom fabrication, building, assembling, site preparation and repair work done on any real property or premises under contract, whether or not the work is for a public body and paid for from public funds.”

 
What Are The Criteria For Independent Contractor Status?

The Act establishes a three-part test that an individual must meet to be properly classified as an independent contractor: 
1. The individual must have a written contract to perform construction services;
2. The individual must be free from control or direction over the performance of those services, both under the contract and in fact; and
3 .The individual must be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.
The Act also sets forth the six specific criteria that will determine whether an individual meets the third part of the test of being “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.”

The Act also sets forth the six specific criteria that will determine whether an individual meets the third part of the test of being "customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business."

1. The individual must possess the essential tools, equipment and other assets necessary to perform the services, independent of the employer.
2. The individual arrangement with the employer is such that the individual must realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of performing the services.
3. The individual must perform the services through a business in which the individual has a proprietary interest.
4. The individual must maintain a business location separate from the location of the employer.
5. The individual must:
                a. Have previously performed the same or similar services for another person, meeting
                the criteria 1 through 4 above, and while free from direction or control over the
                performance of the services; or
                b. Hold him or herself out to others as available and able
                to perform the same or similar services meeting the criteria of 1 through 4 above, and
                while free from direction or control over the performance of the services.
6. The individual must maintain liability insurance of at least $50,000 during the term of the contract.

 
What Penalties May Be Imposed For Violations Of The Act?

The failure to properly classify an individual subjects employers to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per misclassified employee for a first violation, and up to $2,500 per misclassified employee for each subsequent violation. Importantly, the Act also allows the Secretary of Labor and Industry to petition a court for a stop-work order requiring the cessation of work by those individuals who are misclassified, or if a majority of individuals at a worksite are misclassified, to petition for a cessation of all business operations of the employer at each site where a violation occurred. The stop-work order remains in effect until the court issues a release order.

 
In addition, the Act provides for criminal penalties for employers that violate the act and those who intentionally contract with such an employer knowing the employer intends to violate the Act. An intentional violation is a misdemeanor of the third degree for a first offense and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a subsequent offense. A negligent violation is a summary offense subject to a fine of not more than $1,000.

 
Does The Act Prohibit Retaliation?
Yes, the Act prohibits an employer from discriminating or taking an adverse action against any person who in good faith files a complaint or informs any person about an employer’s non-compliance with the Act. An adverse action within 90 days of the person’s complaint raises a rebuttable presumption of retaliation.

Supreme Court Backs Employee in Wage Complaint Case

Last week, in the case of Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the United States  Supreme Court issued a ruling which will impact how an employer responds to complaints from employees regarding wage and hour issues.  Specifically, the Court ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) may, under certain circumstances, shield workers from retaliation for verbal as well as written complaints.  Previously, some courts have interpreted to the FLSA’s retaliation provisions to apply only to written complaints to the Department of Labor, or in some cases, written complaints to an employer.  However, under this ruling, cautious employers now need to be aware that, if an employee raises a concern, in whatever form, about payment of overtime, calculation of time or any other payroll practice, the employer should be prepared to immediately address such complaints.  Furthermore, the complaining employee now enjoys a “super protected” status in that an adverse action taken against the employee such as termination will open the employer up to claims of retaliation; consequently, employers will need to ensure that their employment decisions can be well defended against claims of retaliation.